Re: Dumb question: Why are exceptions such as SIGSEGV not logged

[Hank Leininger <hlein@progressive-comp.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 04:50:49PM -0400, Hank Leininger wrote:
> > ..So not *all* such cases are cause for alarm.  However, if you run one of
> > the patches enabling logging of this, you quickly learn what's normal for
> > the apps you run, and can teach your log-auditing tools and/or your brain
> > to ignore them.
>
> And why not just catch the ones sent from the kernel?  That's the one that
> is killing the program because it crashed,

Well, in my case at least, because if a network-listening daemon fell
over with sigsegv, sigill, etc I most definitely wanted to know about
it.  But, you certainly could make a patch to do only that; it'd be
lower impact, less contraversial but probably still not accepted into
mainline (just a guess).

> and that's the one the origional poster wants logged...

Hm, I see Thar Filipau bringing that up specifically, and it does seem
like something that ought to generate some logs.  (But I thought they
should already generate oops's?  Apparently not.)  The OP seemed to be
concerned with any SIGSEGV and SIGILL signals, not just in-kernel ones?

Hank Leininger <hlein@progressive-comp.com>
E407 AEF4 761E D39C D401  D4F4 22F8 EF11 861A A6F1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQE/QUKRIvjvEYYapvERAn28AJ9ELPYOXKOfcIjvzV88BRzOfde1mACfRbOx
zngdpycDsO4FZgcrilGRMQU=
=X+3w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----